your concern was crime, and if you were michael bloomberg, you would say, this seems to work. there is no empirical evidence to convince anybody because it is not about crime and these things. it is about your view of fire arms and your view of the second amendment and your view of whether individuals should have a right to own firearms and protect themselves. it is much more difficult than what we might think if we were just sitting down and having an empirical discussion about what to do about criminals. >> the second amendment says that a well regulated -- the right to bear arms. what is your view of the first clause? >> the same as the supreme court's view. in those days, the militiamen to everybody. it did not mean organized groups. the part of the second amendment was the rest of it, the supreme court finding. there was a revisionist attempt in the 1970's to say this does not protect individual gun ownership. that was the pitch they attempted to make that there is no individual right to keep theiand bear arms. >> the background check issue. i have two related questions.